DECISION

 

Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Alexander Brown / Alexander Brown Organization /zhen chenfeng / Robinhood / Privacy Department / IceNetworks Ltd.

Claim Number: FA2506002162978

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Blackstone TM L.L.C. ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Alexander Brown / Alexander Brown Organization / zhen chenfeng / Robinhood / Privacy Department / IceNetworks Ltd. ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <blackstonedapp.biz>, <blackstonedapp.online>, <blackstonedapp.shop>, <blackstonedapp.zone>, <blackstonedapp.ai>, <blackstonedapp.site>, <blackstonedapp.space>, <blackstonedapp.cyou>, <blackstonedappa.com>, <blackstonedapp.me>, and <blackstonefinancialservices.com> (collectively "Domain Names"), registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC; Key-Systems GmbH; NameCheap, Inc.; and TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 26, 2025; Forum received payment on June 26, 2025.

 

Between Jun 27, 2025 and July 4, 2025, Each of the Registrars (Squarespace Domains II LLC, Key-Systems GmbH, NameCheap, Inc., and TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd.) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blackstonedapp.biz>, <blackstonedapp.online>, <blackstonedapp.shop>, <blackstonedapp.zone>, <blackstonedapp.ai>, <blackstonedapp.site>, <blackstonedapp.space>, <blackstonedapp.cyou>, <blackstonedappa.com>, <blackstonedapp.me>, and <blackstonefinancialservices.com> domain names are registered with them and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Each of the Registrars have verified that Respondent is bound by their registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On July 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@blackstonedapp.biz, postmaster@blackstonedapp.online, postmaster@blackstonedapp.shop, postmaster@blackstonedapp.zone, postmaster@blackstonedapp.ai, postmaster@blackstonedapp.site, postmaster@blackstonedapp.space, postmaster@blackstonedapp.cyou, postmaster@blackstonedappa.com, postmaster@blackstonedapp.me, and postmaster@blackstonefinancialservices.com. Also on July 8, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 29, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."  

 

Complainant contends that the registrants for the Domain Names are related because: 1) the Domain Names are all similar variants of Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark 2) the Domain Names <blackstonedapp.biz>, <blackstonedapp.online>, <blackstonedapp.shop>, <blackstonedapp.zone>, <blackstonedapp.ai>, <blackstonedapp.site>, <blackstonedapp.space>, <blackstonedappa.com>, and <blackstonefinancialservices.com> ("Active Domain Names") redirect to essentially identical pages (the "Respondent's Website") which purports to offer a cryptocurrency trading wallet app 3) The Domain Names <blackstonedapp.cyou>, and <blackstonedapp.me> ("Inactive Domain Names") are inactive, each resolving to error pages 5) the four named registrants of the Domain Names share various similar contact details with the named registrants of five of the Domain Names sharing the same e-mail address and named registrants of the other six Domain Names sharing the same e-mail address and 6) the Domain Names were all registered within one month of each other. 

 

This evidence, in the Panel's opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that 4 unconnected entities sharing e-mail addresses would register 11 very similar domain names during the same time period, with all of them pointing to either the Respondent's Website or parked/error pages.

 

In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as "Respondent" in this Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Blackstone TM L.L.C., provides a wide variety of services in the finance industry.  Complainant has rights in the BLACKSTONE mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,986,927, registered Jul. 16, 1996).  Respondent's Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark because they each incorporate Complainant's mark in its entirety, simply adding a generic term/abbreviation or terms, and a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") or country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD").

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Names. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Active Domain Names to pass off as Complainant for the purpose of offering competing financial services (namely a cryptocurrency trading app) and passively holds the Inactive Domain Names pending use for the purposes outlined above.

 

Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent misuses Complainant's mark to create confusion and capitalize on the goodwill associated with Complainant.  Additionally, Respondent uses the BLACKSTONE mark for Domain Names from which Respondent purports to offer competing services or passively holds the Inactive Domain Names pending use for such a purpose. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights to the BLACKSTONE mark prior to registering the Domain Names based on the reputation of the Complainant in the financial services space.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the BLACKSTONE mark.  Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments.  See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the BLACKSTONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,986,927, registered Jul. 16, 1996). Registration of a mark with a nation's trademark agency is generally sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH v. li zilin / QQ869292929, FA 1575562 (Forum Sept. 23, 2014) (holding, "Trademark registrations with a governmental authority are sufficient to prove rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).").

 

The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the BLACKSTONE mark as they each incorporate the entire BLACKSTONE mark while adding generic terms or abbreviations ("dapp" being an abbreviation for "decentralized application") and a gTLD or ccTLD. Adding a generic term and a TLD to a wholly incorporated mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also  see also MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD."); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because the domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the BLACKSTONE mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS information of record lists "Alexander Brown / Alexander Brown Organization/ zhen chenfeng / Robinhood / Privacy Department / IceNetworks Ltd." as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Active Domain Names resolve or have resolved to the Respondent's Website that purports to offer financial services (namely a cryptocurrency trading app) in competition with Complainant's financial services.  The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers goods or services that compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant.  See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain's resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).  See also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").  

 

The Inactive Domain Names resolve to pages with error messages. Passively holding a disputed domain name may suggest a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See TMP Int'l, Inc. v. Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) ("[T]he Panel concludes that Respondent's [failure to make an active use] of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."). Furthermore, in the present case the Panel considers it likely that the Inactive Domain Names are being held pending use in a similar manner to the Active Domain Names.

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names (May-June 2025), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark since the Respondent's Website offers services in direct competition with Complainant. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 11 domain names that contain the BLACKSTONE mark and use 9 of them (with the remaining domain names being inactively held) to redirect visitors to a website offering financial services other than to take advantage Complainant's reputation in the BLACKSTONE mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Active Domain Names (the Inactive Domain Names likely being passively held pending similar use) to resolve to a website offering competing services.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent's competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶4(b)(iv).  See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant's business by diverting Internet users from the complainant's website to the respondent's website where it offered competing printer products).   See also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). See also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blackstonedapp.biz>, <blackstonedapp.online>, <blackstonedapp.shop>, <blackstonedapp.zone>, <blackstonedapp.ai>, <blackstonedapp.site>, <blackstonedapp.space>, <blackstonedapp.cyou>, <blackstonedappa.com>, <blackstonedapp.me>, and <blackstonefinancialservices.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: July 29, 2025